One word in the latest draft report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) sums up why climate inaction is so uniquely immoral: “Irreversible.”

The message from climate scientists about our ongoing failure to cut carbon pollution: The catastrophic changes in climate that we are voluntarily choosing to impose on our children and grandchildren — and countless generations after them — cannot plausibly be undone for hundreds of years or more.

Yes, we can still stop the worst — with virtually no impact on growth, as an earlier IPCC report from April made clear — but future generations will not be able reverse whatever we are too greedy and shortsighted to prevent through immediate action.

The world’s top scientists have finalized their “synthesis” report (of their fifth full scientific Assessment since 1990). It integrates the analysis from their three previous Fifth Assessment reports — ones on climate science, climate impacts, and climate solutions. They have sent a draft of this report to the world’s leading governments, who must sign off on it line by line and will no doubt water it down.

This report was leaked to the AP and others. That means we can see the unvarnished language.

The scientists want to know that “currently observed impacts might already be considered dangerous” — at least if you think more extreme heat waves and more extreme droughts and more extreme deluges and more extreme storm surges are dangerous.

But it’s the future we should be worrying about the most:

Continued emission of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and long-lasting changes in all components of the climate system, increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems.

Translation: Continued inaction would be catastrophic and immoral.

The risk of abrupt and irreversible change increases as the magnitude of the warming increases.

Translation: The more we delay, the worse it can get.

Without additional mitigation, and even with adaptation, warming by the end of the 21st century will lead to high to very high risk of severe, widespread and irreversible impacts globally.

Translation: Future generations can’t simply adapt to the ruined climate we are in the process of handing over to them. Either we start cutting carbon pollution ASAP or we should just stop pretending we are a rational, moral species.

How bad can it get? The IPCC already explained that in the science report (see “Alarming IPCC Prognosis: 9°F Warming For U.S., Faster Sea Rise, More Extreme Weather, Permafrost Collapse”). And they expanded on that in the impacts report (see “Conservative Climate Panel Warns World Faces ‘Breakdown Of Food Systems’ And More Violent Conflict”).

As an aside, while the AP has done a great job summarizing this draft, there really is no excuse for quoting climate confusionist John Christy that we will be okay: “Humans are clever. We shall adapt to whatever happens.” The point is the IPCC has explained that conclusion is just B.S. by any useful definition of the phrase “adapt to” — unless you think it means “suffer through.”

As I’ve explained recently, quoting John Christy on climate change is like quoting Dick Cheney on Iraq. Even the AP acknowledges that Christy “is in the tiny minority of scientists who are skeptical of mainstream science’s claim that global warming is a major problem.” Since when does the media have to give any space to a tiny minority?

The IPCC reports are just reviews of the scientific literature, so the focus on the irreversible nature of climate change is no surprise. Indeed, as far back as January 2009 we reported on research led by NOAA scientists titled “Irreversible climate change because of carbon dioxide emissions.” That study had some alarming conclusions.

…the climate change that is taking place because of increases in carbon dioxide concentration is largely irreversible for 1,000 years after emissions stop … Among illustrative irreversible impacts that should be expected if atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increase from current levels near 385 parts per million by volume (ppmv) to a peak of 450-600 ppmv over the coming century are irreversible dry-season rainfall reductions in several regions comparable to those of the ”dust bowl” era and inexorable sea level rise.

It is always important to remember — as RealClimate wrote of the 2009 study — “Irreversible Does Not Mean Unstoppable.” This latest draft synthesis report makes clear we can still stop the worst from happening, at a very low cost, but we have to start slashing emissions ASAP.

Joe Romm is a Fellow at American Progress and is the editor of Climate Progress, which New York Times columnist Tom Friedman called "the indispensable blog" and Time magazine named one of the 25 "Best Blogs of 2010." In 2009, Rolling Stone put Romm #88 on its list of 100 "people who are reinventing America." Time named him a "Hero of the Environment″ and “The Web’s most influential ...

As you mentioned, climate change will have drastic and irreversible effects in the future such as increased severity and frequency of extreme weather and rising sea levels. Bill McKibben’s film Do the Math further drives home the point that curbing carbon emissions should be our number one priority. Because burning fossil fuels is a major contributor to carbon emissions, it is critical that large organizations begin to curb their dependence on nonrenewable energy.

In order for large corporations to begin to understand where they are using excess amounts of energy and how to reduce their consumption, managers must have access to automated energy data. It surprises me how many companies still use slow and error-prone manual data acquisition in which individuals must type in data points from paper invoices. Updating this process can greatly enhance a company's energy performance.

Yup, highest co2 in 15 million years, enough to cause sick building syndromes outside. Humans did not evolve to take this high of CO2, it cause drowsiness and pain. What's that worth?
Waste bio char used to double the yield of poor soils is the massively carbon negative, land negative energy source we need. It is enough to backup solar and wind too.
It's cheaper, safe, clean, forever, and ready now.
Nuclear is deadly and the most expensive electricity there is. Only gov break and protection keep them alive at all.

It's ironic (and more than a bit sad) that the mass-membership organizations which take this problem most seriously are dead-set against (and almost hysterically opposed to) our best means of addressing it.

Take the issue of space heat. Economizing without slashing comfort means cutting energy losses. There are ways to insulate old buildings, but most have major drawbacks: applying insulation to the inside of a solid wall cuts interior space, and putting it outside alters the appearance. Rebuilding everything fast enough to hit the required schedule has such a high financial and energy cost that we can rule it out. Some replacement is inevitable; some buildings, such as those in the path of sea-level rise, must be abandoned and the people and activities moved elsewhere. But the rest?

All it takes is a source of carbon-free heat to make such buildings a non-issue for climate. Something like small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs), buried in tunnels deep underground with their waste steam from electric generation plumbed into district heating systems, would de-carbonize the climate control for substantial parts of cities. It could even be something we could sell to China. Imagine all of the myriad coal-burning stoves in Beijing that could be replaced by steam radiators or baseboard hot water from an electric plant half a mile away and 500 feet down. As soon as that was installed, both the air pollution and carbon emissions would vanish.

If memory serves, the NuScale reactor is rated at 45 MW(e), 125 MW(t). I make that 80 MW difference, so 80 MW(t) of waste heat. That's about 270 million BTU/hour, enough to supply most of the heating loads of perhaps fifteen thousand single-family homes. Plant one of those in the right place, put in the plumbing, and voila: mass decarbonization.

Humans encompass a wide range of personality types, from outright guiltless sociopaths to relative saints. You can experience this directly just driving on the average freeway. Some people will cut you a break, others will cut you off for the thrill of it. Most people are just focussed on getting on with their lbusiness.

I would submit that most of the people on the denial side of the argument are, in fact, on the sociopath end of the spectrum. They will sacrifice nothing for their neighbors, let alone those still unborn. The question is, can those with some empathy overcome the resistance of the sociopaths and the interia of the bulk of humanity.

I have some hope, and I'll keep trying, but for the most part, I will focus on making plans for allowing my children to adapt.